No i heard one go by today and it sounded like

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'mmmmmmmmmmmm gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Then i heard one at a stop light next to me going

homohomohomohomohomohomohomohomohomohomohomo



Gotta love Walter!

Jeff Dunham http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb12nQEOyfM

Actually i completely disagree with your statement. I've had a BB storm for almost a year now and they charge the EXACT same thing for the storm. You have to pay the $30 unlimited web plan and to tether it is another $30/mo but i'm not sure if they are two different caps or if they both share the same cap. i use my phone fairly heavily for web stuff and email and opening large (2mb+) attachments and i've yet to even come close to just 1GB a month.

I do agree that tethering is something that shouldn't cost extra and that's why i refuse to pay the additional $30 for that but they do have other options that will let you use it for a day for $10 i think and a week for $20, i don't remember the exact details but if you were gonna use it often then the $30 was worth it but to connect just for a day or two here and there it wasn't.

And honestly with the coverage and other benefits Verizon (at least in my area) is the best and you can bet every other cell company has a similar cap in their contract and if not then there service or coverage isn't good and they're using it just to attract customers.

I have google home page for two main reasons

1. The google home page is small, loads quick, and if i'm going to type something in the address bar the last thing i want is to get halfway through typing and have it finish loading the page and overwrite what i just typed. I know you can hit stop and etc... but why would i want to do that all the time when i can just use google as the home page?

2. The Google search box in firefox reloads the current tab with the search results, most of the time when i search i want the results in a new tab and then i open the links each in new tabs too so that i can reference them individually. The middle mouse button on the home button yanks up a new google search tab on the fly without having to worry about opening a new tab first.

I don't do as much searching as i used to but to just have it ready at a moments notice with the middle mouse button on the home page is too easy for me and being a creature of habit if it was different then my productivity would suffer

Those increased costs and workload are for actually doing "real" police work instead

I adapted the spam form to a more updated file-sharing version...



Your post advocates a

( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting illegal File sharing. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Userss can easily add encryption to circumvent the monitoring
( ) Legitimate file transfers would be blocked or hindered
( ) You cannot sue every single person who shares files illegally
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop file sharing for two weeks and then we'll have another new way
(X) Users would not put up with it
( ) ISP's will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from file sharers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many users cannot afford to pay that much anyway

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlled authority for file sharing
( ) The numerous different avenues for sharing files
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes or fees
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in current file sharing methods
( ) Ability of applications to enable encryption
( ) Willingness of users to share files unknowingly
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme cost savings of file sharing to users
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who try to implement filtering
( ) Dishonesty on the part of file sharers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Anonymous networks such as TOR

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-in or opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Packet headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to share legitimate files without being blocked
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public or private networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sharing files should not add an additional cost to current ISP charges
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government or my ISP snooping all my traffic

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Don't worry Google is working on this as well, they will soon recreate the world using pictures from your accidentally public facebook pictures. Not only will they be able to provide 3d city models but also provide you a model of your home, pool, garage, neighborhood, vacation spots, etcc... Soon you won't even need to vacation you can just step in the the local Google Holo Deck and be instantly transported to your favorite destination with real-time visual updates!!

Aint the future grand?

Your post advocates a

( X ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( X ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( X ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( X ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( X ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( X ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( X ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

If you're going to reboot an original you gotta do Oregon Trail!

not that it was really a series, but put in a better map, better hunting, different hazards, more types of supplies, open-ended route selection like gps navigation or something, roving bands of indians to deal with, much much more!!

i still have the old version on a flash drive with an old mac emulator and play it every now and then, so much fun hunting, i always max out the number of bullets i can take with me!

Actually this sounds like the echo location batman used in the Dark Night at the end except for being self contained on the phone versus using just the mic from all phones and processing centrally

Of course it's the US we do EVERYTHING bigger and better!! (though that's reported prisoners) if you read the wikipedia article you would see that some claim forced labor camps in China to be "prisoners" and that additional population would put them higher than the US though not by much...


The Wikipedia article:

The link and the relevant section is "Comparison with other countries"

I was under the impression that only 1, 6, 11 were the only channels that didn't overlap. using 12, 13, or even 14 would still overlap with channel 9-11 and would decrease the bandwidth capable Wifi Channels

i've seen other images of the channel/spectrum use that puts the ends of the channels closer together especially in some of the Cisco wireless documentation. So i don't think that switching to an illegal channel (in the US anyway) would help much.


Oh yeah and here's the relevant wikipedia article for 802.11

You will want to scroll down to the "Channels and international compatibility"

I think the real question here is can the streaming content be saved locally?

With my mythtv box that i have one of the main benefits is i can store the shows for later, not just until i have time to watch them but for when you want to do those marathon weekends and re-watch everything from the beginning in order.

I think if they can record streaming shows from abc and such (which are available OTA) would be great, recording the netflix is not as needed since as long as you have the service you have all of the movies.

I believe what he was trying to say is why do they force a phone line or basic cable on you when all he want's is just the internet. He is not asking for that service and obviously doesn't want it so why should he have to pay for it?

This has nothing to do with his neighbors, bailing anything out, etc... that's just your own made up political ranting.

The GP just wanted internet with no extra services and to PAY FOR IT, he just didn't want to pay for the extra services. Our phone companies around my area do the same thing, phone line + 768k dsl is cheaper than just plain DSL which makes no sense since they are offering more services to you for less money, seems like a deal but why can't i just get internet without the land line and have it be even cheaper? Same with cable companies, $50 for internet only, $40 for basic cable only, $60 for internet and basic cable? it just doesn't make any sense. They want you to have more services and give you more for less money when you don't even want them.

Can't wait to check out the Bermuda triangle, if there are no ships then it must be true!

I believe he meant Australia, he did say massive